On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 08:51:21AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While firmware is the most important category of software not available
> in Debian main needed by Debian users at install time, there are others.
>
Hi Paul,
I think there's a couple of issues here that need untangling.
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 04:26:40PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:26:51AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Hey Wouter!
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 12:19:55PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > >On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 08:58:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > >>
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 08:18:55AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> Hi Bart,
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:12:48AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> > The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> > and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the
Forwarded following a bounce to debian-vote for completeness
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 14:03:57 +
From: "Andrew M.A. Cater"
To: Simon Josefsson
Cc: debian-v...@einval.com
Subject: Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:53:46AM +0200, Simon Josef
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:32:23AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Bart Martens dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 06:24:32PM +0200]:
> > > > We will include non-free firmware packages from the
> > > > "non-free-firmware" section of the Debian archive on our official
> > > > media (installer images and
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 04:17:42PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:31:18PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > Under 4.1.5 of the Constitution, the developers by way of GR are the
> > body who has the power to issue nontechnical statements.
> >
> > This is a proposal for
All,
We've had the Code of Conduct for about eight years now and the Community Team
for about as long. There are still significant differences about how some
people feel about them, despite the Code of Conduct having been adopted by the
Project as a whole.
How do _you_ feel about the Code of
Everyone :
The project is expecting the results of two votes shortly.
The results won't please everyone - they never do. Please continue to be
polite and constructive and work positively with your Debian colleagues
however the votes fall.
With thanks for your consideration in this
Andy
Everyone:
As we've seen many times in the last 25 years or so: Contentious discussions
are easy to start and hard to stop.
Online arguments are hard to contain. It is very easy indeed to upset somebody
- to push their buttons - so that they either crumple and fold up or react
angrily and
On Sun, Apr 04, 2021 at 05:36:21PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> >
> > Thanks
>
> (I agree with your mail. I'm just wondering.. about the following)
>
> - are you a member of the community team?
> - was this an 'official' mail from the team or your personal opinion or a mix
>
Everyone:
There are currently two GRs (the DPL vote and the RMS statement) which have
proved contentious and created large amounts of discussion, stifling some of
the discussion we might normally have had.
The vote period on both GRs has now started: please, everyone, stop posting
On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 05:16:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[Big snip - Raul Miller wrote]
If we release an amd64 in sarge, we're committing to supporting it.
If the current port paints us into a corner, that's a good reason to
not start supporting it yet.
[Goswin replied]
No,
On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:03:43AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm disappointed at the amount of nonsense being posted in this thread
along the following lines:
But this is no excuse for arguing the legal technicalities (`what does
the Social Contract mean') as opposed to the moral/practical
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 02:13:47PM +0200, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Ah, consensus doesn't require voting?
Not in the sense that democrats are used to. But it does involve
canvassing and finding out everyones position on a
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 02:13:47PM +0200, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Ah, consensus doesn't require voting?
Not in the sense that democrats are used to. But it does involve
canvassing and finding out everyones position on a
If you follow the dates, the vote has started. I've requested a ballot
and sent it [twice, since the first one didn't provoke any response].
Has the DPL vote started? Is it just a case of getting the non-free
thing out of the way by tomorrow night so that Manoj can restart
devotee?
Andy
--
If you follow the dates, the vote has started. I've requested a ballot
and sent it [twice, since the first one didn't provoke any response].
Has the DPL vote started? Is it just a case of getting the non-free
thing out of the way by tomorrow night so that Manoj can restart
devotee?
Andy
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
biggish snip
Then may I suggest that a supporter of this argument propose a Social
Contract amendment that specifically excluding licences like text from
needing to satisfy the DFSG?
OK. Here goes dons asbestos suit, tinfoil hat
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 12:37:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
biggish snip
Then may I suggest that a supporter of this argument propose a Social
Contract amendment that specifically excluding licences like text from
needing to satisfy the DFSG?
OK. Here goes dons asbestos suit, tinfoil hat
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:18:34AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
It's only contradictory when you assume that Debian distributing
software implies that the software distributed is part of Debian in one
way or another!
I don't
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:18:34AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
It's only contradictory when you assume that Debian distributing
software implies that the software distributed is part of Debian in one
way or another!
I don't
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I personally think that it is a mistake to try to cut users off from
non-free software by external diktat and that Debian gets it right by
offering the choice to not have it in your apt sources. In the long
run free
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:39:56PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I personally think that it is a mistake to try to cut users off from
non-free software by external diktat and that Debian gets it right by
offering the choice to not have it in your apt sources. In the long
run free
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
snip
| We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
| that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
| support interoperability standards such as Linux System Base, and
|
to the
structures we have inherited and committing to their indefinite support.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:29:47PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Andrew S. wants to remove clause 5 and to state that Debian will not
release another stable release with the non-free FTP archive, as I
understand
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
snip
| We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
| that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
| support interoperability standards such as Linux System Base, and
|
to the
structures we have inherited and committing to their indefinite support.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:29:47PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Andrew S. wants to remove clause 5 and to state that Debian will not
release another stable release with the non-free FTP archive, as I
understand
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:33:21AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal serves as a replacement for my earlier proposals:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html
one which is not yet in the mailing list archives, but
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:33:21AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This proposal serves as a replacement for my earlier proposals:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html
one which is not yet in the mailing list archives, but
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 12:22:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:18:23PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jan 9, 2004, at 20:26, Anthony Towns wrote:
and thus [go a long way]
towards [getting non-free removed from Debian], then they should want
to setup such
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:28AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
[CCing -devel as I am making a technical proposal, see below.]
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
so, what exactly is in non-free?
Thanks a lot for the effort, Craig.
since no-one else has
One non-free package which can be replaced relatively straightforwardly:
mpg123 (non-free) is approximately equal to mpg321 (in main)
Just a datum point - I expect I'll now get lots of people contradicting
me but one package would be a start :)
To reiterate one of my points in favour of Debian
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:18:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
then explain why software that is almost-free (e.g. software that is free for
use or modification but is prohibited from commercial sale) should not be
distributed
One non-free package which can be replaced relatively straightforwardly:
mpg123 (non-free) is approximately equal to mpg321 (in main)
Just a datum point - I expect I'll now get lots of people contradicting
me but one package would be a start :)
To reiterate one of my points in favour of Debian
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:56:23PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:18:25AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
then explain why software that is almost-free (e.g. software that is free
for
use or modification but is prohibited from commercial sale) should not be
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:42:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
As a matter of fact, both acroread and netscape-* had free replacements
(although not identical) for years. One of them perhaps a bit less
functional than the non-free one (xpdf), the other ones quite more so
(mozilla,
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 02:42:47PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
As a matter of fact, both acroread and netscape-* had free replacements
(although not identical) for years. One of them perhaps a bit less
functional than the non-free one (xpdf), the other ones quite more so
(mozilla,
All,
personal background
Just my 0.02 Euro / USD 0.02 / £0.01.
I've been using Debian now for about 9 years. I advocate it everywhere
I go. I run five computers at my work on Debian, despite the official
Linux being Red Hat Enterprise. I generally have around 5-7
computers at home running
All,
personal background
Just my 0.02 Euro / USD 0.02 / ?0.01.
I've been using Debian now for about 9 years. I advocate it everywhere
I go. I run five computers at my work on Debian, despite the official
Linux being Red Hat Enterprise. I generally have around 5-7
computers at home running
39 matches
Mail list logo
